Skip to main content

LIC pulled up, asked to pay Rs. 1.06 lakh for harassing claimant

Life Insurance Corporation has been pulled up by a consumer forum here for "knowingly harassing" the widow of a policy holder by denying her claim and directed to pay her Rs. 1.06 lakh.

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum noted that as per the conditions of the policy issued to the complainant's husband no medical report was required, but LIC had denied the claim on the ground that he had not disclosed that he had been suffering from TB for over four years.

"We have gone through the contents of complaint and noticed that non-medical policy for sum assured of Rs. 50,000 was issued to the complainant by opposite party (LIC) over which there is no medical report is required as per norms of LIC policy.

"Despite the above facts, opposite party deliberately/arbitrarily denied the claim without supporting evidence which is a clear case of deficiency/unfair trade practice that opposite party knowingly harassed consumers without any reason except to suck the blood just like a blood hounder as if money goes from LIC officials' pocket," a bench presided by CK Chaturvedi said.

The forum directed LIC to pay Delhi resident Hasmukhi Devi the assured amount of Rs. 50,000 under the policy along with Rs. 35,000 as compensation and Rs. 21,000 as cost of litigation.

According to Devi, her husband Ram Avtar, who was insured under a LIC policy since December 12, 2003 for a sum of Rs. 50,000 had died on April 11, 2005, during the period of the insurance cover.

She had filed the claim for assured amount after that and the same was rejected by LIC.

LIC had rejected the claim on the ground that her husband had been suffering from TB for over four years and had not disclosed the same while availing the policy.

Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/LIC-pulled-up-asked-to-pay-Rs-1-06-lakh-for-harassing-claimant/Article1-1095981.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more